Sustainable Tourism Law

390 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM LAW owner of the house also denies liability. In conclusion, one year after the accident, neither Airbnb nor the owner have admitted their responsibility or offered to cover the victim’s expenses, even if only in part. The victims have already informed they will sue Airbnb in court for the damages suffered. This case shows in a very straightforward way that damages can occur and, how at the end of the day, no one knows who should be held responsible. It is a totally different situation from the classic accommodation, like hotels, in which we know that the hotel will be held liable before its client if something occurs inside the perimeter of the hotel facilities. Given the numbers involved in this type of accommodation, and with a trend to grow, something must be done towards an increased and effective protection of the parties involved, especially regarding the guests. It is true that hosts themselves are nowadays more sensible to this matter and will try to protect themselves with their own insurances. But this is not an easy path to take. Each host, individually, will have serious problems negotiating a real protective insurance for a price they can afford. The result will be a very poor insurance policy or, in the worst case scenario, no insurance at all. VI. THE DEFENDED POSITION It is clear for us that these new ways of conducting business require new legal approaches to prevent the appearance of what we can call, in one word, injustice. And the field of liability is one of the most important elements to provide a safety net for all involved, especially the users (or guests) in this new model of sharing accommodation. Although, fortunately, there are very few accidents and damages to report in this activity, the truth is, when those accidents occurred, no proper and effective solution could be found 8 . While they haven’t been implemented yet, the solution to avoid this kind of problems would be to institute an objective liability (or strict liability 9 ) for the online platforms operating in the market. Strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault 10 (negligence will not be necessary 8 See the Brigthon accident. 9 Strict liability is sometimes distinguished from absolute liability. In this context, an actus reus may be excused from strict liability if due diligence is proved. Absolute liability, however, requires only an actus reus. In other words, the difference between strict and absolute liability is whether the defence of a mistake of fact is available. 10 Epstein, Richard A., A Theory of Strict Liability. The Journal of Legal Studies 1973